Abstract
Delegations are in the final stages of negotiating the proposedAgreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction(BBNJAgreementorAgreement). TheAgreementwill have tremendous scope. Geographically it covers all ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction, meaning approximately 60 percent of the earth’s surface. Substantively it deals with a range of complex topics necessary for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, including marine genetic resources, sharing of benefits, measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. Existing scholarship primarily explores the substantive choices for theAgreement; little examines its proposed institutional structure. This article critically assesses the competing positions advanced during negotiations for theAgreement’sinstitutional structure – the ‘global’ and ‘regional’ positions – and reviews the middle, or ‘compromise’ position adopted by the draft text. It suggests that both global and regional actors will be necessary to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and that some form of coordinating mechanism is required to allocate responsibility for particular tasks. Two principles are proposed for use in combination to provide a mechanism to help coordinateAgreementorgans (global) and regional or sectoral bodies, namely, the principles of subsidiarity and cooperation. These principles are found in existing international and regional structures but are advanced here in dynamic forms, allowing for temporary or quasi-permanent allocation of competences, which can change or evolve over time. This position is also grounded in the international law of treaties and furthers dynamic views of regional and global ocean governance by offering practical coordinating principles that work with the existingAgreementtext.
Highlights
Two decades of planning and negotiations on an Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (Agreement) appear to be nearing a conclusion
The UN General Assembly decided in paragraph 2 that ‘negotiations shall address the topics identified in the package agreed in 2011, namely the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, in particular, together and as a whole, marine genetic resources (MGRs), including questions on the sharing of benefits, measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology’ (United Nations General Assembly [UNGA], 2015)
Applied to the current Agreement, those advocating a global institutional model have argued that the resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) must be subject to the common heritage of humankind principle in the same manner as the Area, which is governed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA)
Summary
This article critically assesses the competing positions advanced during negotiations for the Agreement’s institutional structure – the ‘global’ and ‘regional’ positions – and reviews the middle, or ‘compromise’ position adopted by the draft text It suggests that both global and regional actors will be necessary to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and that some form of coordinating mechanism is required to allocate responsibility for particular tasks. Two principles are proposed for use in combination to provide a mechanism to help coordinate Agreement organs (global) and regional or sectoral bodies, namely, the principles of subsidiarity and cooperation These principles are found in existing international and regional structures but are advanced here in dynamic forms, allowing for temporary or quasi-permanent allocation of competences, which can change or evolve over time.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have